In the beginning . . . Adam walked with dinosaurs [Creationist Park]

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 02 January 2005 | James Langton

[Thatcherite]

Perhaps, you could refer me to a cite wherein the word "gravity," meaning the phenomenon of apparent attraction of masses, is referenced meaning, in addition to the phenomenon, an explanation of how it works and calling it the “theory of gravity.”

Try this

[shubi]

Science decides what science is, not the Bible. Sorry if you can't accept that. Just don't try to become a scientist.

[shubi]

Interesting that that happened before the Sun was created.

[shubi]

Do you think you are winning a debate on the merits of AIG's museum and the fact of evolution by being a stalker?

If you are out for my blood over a defense of the indefensible AIG nonsense, that is rather sad.

[shubi]

There is a reason. They make millions selling nonsense to the ignorant.

[Lucky Dog]

[from my post 822]Perhaps, you could refer me to a cite wherein the word "gravity," meaning the phenomenon of apparent attraction of masses, is referenced meaning, in addition to the phenomenon, an explanation of how it works and calling it the “theory of gravity.” I am aware of certain postulations of “unified field theory” or cosmological theory wherein “gravity,” the observed phenomenon, is proposed to be the result of extensions of quantum theory. [emphasis added – not in original post] However, I have never read of nor heard of this or any other postulations referred to only as “gravity” using this single word, or the “theory of gravity.” However, I am more than willing to stand corrected if you can send me the reference.

[from your post 921]Try this

Your linked article forces me to partially concede your point. As noted by the emphasis above in my previous post (indicated above), I was aware of this theory from technical literature. The technical literature I reviewed did not use the phrase, “theory of gravity.” However, there are apparently some references from the popular press that refer to a “theory of gravity.” Hence, please accept my apology and partial concession.

However, I must keep my concession partial as I found nothing in this article that uses the word “gravity” to refer to both the phenomenon and the theory. In fact, the article draws very careful distinctions as noted by a few of the author’s quotes below.

[from the article] This new theory of gravity is part of a more general Unified Field Theory (UFT) that shows how all of the known force fields work together. …

The general model now being used to describe the gravitational field proposes…

I continue to hold that my generalization still stands that references to “gravity,” the phenomenon, are not widely used to refer to “the theory” especially within the technical community.

Thank you for your time and effort in bringing the referenced article to my attention allowing me correct a misconception on my part.

[iconoclast]

Atheism is frequently a pseudo intellectual affectation.

[iconoclast]

I love it when they argue between themselves.

It's "science" but, unlike say the freezing point of water, they can't agree on the "facts".

[Thatcherite]

Glad to have been of help. I already said that it is unfortunate that biologists use the same word for the fact and theory of evolution, mainly from my POV because of the confusion that it causes amongst non-scientists, and particularly because the scientifically uneducated can be persuaded that "evolution is just a theory"

Because both uses are in such wide currency it is not going to be possible to change it now. As we have seen the theory explaining gravity is comparatively new, I guess we'll have to wait and see if "the theory of gravity" becomes common currency. Any confusion in that area would be less significant because no-one denies the fact of gravity (I hope, though of course the church effectively tried to deny Galileo's observations of Jupiter's gravity operating on its moons).

[iconoclast]

BTW, I enjoyed a long career in engineering ... and I am not a literalist.

[shubi]

Who is talking about atheism?

[shubi]

The theory is always under discussion and the details of science are always being reviewed. It is not dogma like the cultish fundamentalist view of Bible misinterpretation.

[shubi]

What is your position on AIG and the museum showing nonsense like a dinosaur chasing a human?

[iconoclast]

To each his own. Barnum's quote comes to mind.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

No I'm proving that you are not a Christian. If you think I'm "stalking" you so that you can make a claim to the PTB, then stop pretending to be something you are not to discredit the ones of us who are

[D Edmund Joaquin]

The Lord needs no sun to create light, if you read the bible, you'd know that

[D Edmund Joaquin]

and as we know, a heap o' facts do not a science make

[shubi]

I don't care what you think. I always tell the truth.
Do you have any facts at all to support dinos running with Man, or are you just trying to distract from an empty position based on an absurd Bible interpretation?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

yes, I do, the Flintstones.

[shubi]

"The Lord needs no sun to create light, if you read the bible, you'd know that"

I read the Bible a lot closer than you apparently do. How would I know about the Sun not being formed until after the first day?

No, you cannot refute the fact that 24 hr day interpretation is just silly in light of time period one.